The Diaper Dilemma

[pnwmom]

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/06/12/opinion/diaper-dilemma

How well could you parent without diapers? Imagine caring for your precious grandchild with an empty diaper bag. Families in this community ration diapers, rinse out and reuse soiled disposable diapers and stretch one diaper over days. They choose between paying rent, gassing the car or buying diapers. Working parents have to stay home and teen moms must miss school because their day care programs require a full day’s supply of disposable diapers dropped off with the baby in the morning. This is true even in subsidized day care programs. Infants are abused because they scream from the pain of diaper rash. Even if a family in poverty wants to use cloth diapers, detergents and the few Laundromats that will allow dirty diapers in the machines are very expensive.

SNIP

Right now, in this country, babies born into poverty are caught in a diaper dilemma. Diapers are not covered by any government assistance programs, not food stamps and not WIC support. Diapers are rarely provided through food banks*. Diapers are expensive, about 25 cents each. An adequate supply, costs $75 - $115 per month. Families in poverty or crisis due to illness, domestic violence, mental health issues or just bad luck, struggle heartily to provide the basics that so many of us take for granted. There are a number of “political” ways that one can respond to this issue. In the end, is this a battle that babies should be fighting?
I don’t think so. Locally, WestSide Baby provides 500,000 diapers to local families in need. These diapers are donated through diaper drives, we purchase them with financial donations and some are donated by diaper manufacturers. On the most basic level, these diapers prevent infection and the spread of disease to the babies, their families and anyone else these babies connect with daily. To be blunt, anyone who has ever had pain “down there” should cringe at the thought of baby diaper rash.

What can you do about this? For starters, let people know about this diaper dilemma. Set aside a quarter each time someone says “Really?” when you say “Food Stamps don’t cover Diapers.” Consider donating diapers or hosting a diaper drive. WestSide Baby will distribute those diapers through more than 90 local established social services agencies, including the West Seattle and White Center Food Banks.

We are also exploring bigger ways to address this issue. We are looking at national efforts, considering legislative advocacy, exploring purchasing options to keep our costs as low as possible and working closing with Kimberly Clark, Huggies as they prioritize the issue of diaper deprivation. I don’t believe that any one entity can solve this problem alone. It’s not up to government, corporations, foundations or individuals to tackle this in isolation. It must be a group effort. For now, I think we’ll have better luck with baby steps than James will, especially with your help.

SNIP

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[hedgehog]

148. I wanted to ask this near the top so I could get an answer: What kind of diapers

should I be donating at the food pantry? Are store brands OK? What sizes?

[ChazII]

161. Speaking only for the 2 food banks I volunteer at

which are church sponsored, they take any size and any brand.

[hedgehog]

178. Thanks!

[pnwmom]

164. I'm just going to get whatever I can find at Costco.

:hi:

[SpiralHawk]

2. These are ideas the Republicons will surely get behind

...considering their hearty approval of diaper, um, matters...

[dembotoz]

3. geee who could they get as a spokesman????

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. "what can you do about this?" Howsabout not rewarding pregancy?

Radical thought.
Probably won't win me any friends here.

Each baby costs around $250,000 in care and expenses until they're 18 years old.
If you can't demonstrate an ability to afford a baby at birth, then no wic, no stamps, no public housing, no tax breaks. It's time to crack down on this teen mother bullshit. Start forcing child support payments on the father's parents or whoever's up the food chain that's got the money to pay for diapers. Teen pregancy will end real fast if the kids distant relatives are liable for their child if the parents can't afford it.

[dionysus]

6. "If you can't...afford a baby at birth, then no wic, no stamps, no public housing, no tax breaks"..

that's about as right wing a statement as one could possibly make.

:puke:

[Shagbark Hickory]

8. I'm all for wic, food stamps and tax breaks...

But if you have no money and you have a baby, then how is it fair for the rest of us to pick up the tab?

I'm big into fairness. I don't believe this is fair. Too many babies in the world. We have to do something about it at some point.

Food stamps should be temporary relief for parents that are down on their luck. Not a replacement for actual means of supporting a child.

[Pithlet]

18. It's not about fair. It's about being civilized.

Civilized societies don't let children starve. They have social safety nets to make sure that doesn't happen. They don't think about punishing the parents of those children because they made a bad decision.

[pnwmom]

173. I appreciate all your posts here.

It's hard not to be discouraged looking over so many of the responses, though. I never expected this to be so controversial.

[Bill McBlueState]

98. It's ***exceedingly*** fair for the rest of us to pick up the tab

Everyone's quality of life will take a major turn for the worse if there's a huge population of children who aren't getting their basic needs met because of an anti-social drive to punish their parents.

[pnwmom]

172. Thanks for the common sense. n/t

[ret5hd]

7. Yeah! Make those g-d d----d babies PAY!

[Shagbark Hickory]

10. Make the babies' grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins pay.

If the parent can't afford it.
There need to be some real consequences for teen pregnancy and for having babies that you can't afford.

Food stamps need to be temporary relief for people that are down on their luck. Not a replacement for an actual means of supporting a baby.

[Fumesucker]

17. How are you going to make cousins responsible for someone's baby?

I have cousins I've never met, are they somehow responsible for me or any potential child I might have?

[Shagbark Hickory]

19. Courts will have to award such a judgement if they determine that a child is being neglected.

After a reasonable amount of time to rectify the neglect and after a reasonable temporary period of welfare benefits, someone else in the family should have to pay it in my view.

A little while ago, I saw on a news broadcast that children in Iraq and their parents are making a living by sifting through a garbage dump to find things they can sell. Is that what we want for our country?

[Pithlet]

21. Yeah. You're all about fairness.

Why is it fair to make someone else in the family pay? And wht makes you think they'll magically be able to afford to? Poverty tends to be generational. Sifting through garbage is exactly what will happen if you get your way. Because that's exactly what happens to families when social safety nets are removed. What makes you think aunts, uncles and cousins will be able to afford to take care of offspring?

[Shagbark Hickory]

29. What do you suggest?

The government supports the children indefinitely, and only if they are poor?

[Pithlet]

32. I suggest being a progressive Democrat and supporting programs that help them.

Duh.

[Shagbark Hickory]

38. Help them do what?

What's going to happen to all these babies?
We're already seeing the effects of too many hungry mouths to feed, too many butts and not enough diapers, and not enough jobs.

[Pithlet]

39. Not starve and sleep in the streets n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

45. But you are taking away the only current consquence of having a baby you can't afford.

If you can't afford a baby, then you can very well end up starving and in the streets.

[Pithlet]

48. No, you're just mistaken in thinking that it's an incentive to have babies.

That's moronic.

[Shagbark Hickory]

52. Welfare is an incentive for many to have babies.

And also welfare is not an ideal means for supporting a child.

You don't agree with this?

[Pithlet]

57. Bullshit.

No, I don't agree with that because as I said, that is moronic. Especiallly now, after welfare reform.

[Shagbark Hickory]

60. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

That's been known to happen here on DU with various subjects.

No hard feelings? :toast:

[Pithlet]

61. Sorry. I find it a disgusting position.

I won't agree to disagree with starving babies. I think it's appalling. Have a nice day.

[Shagbark Hickory]

65. Thank you. Have a nice day too.

By the way, I also find starving babies appalling which is why I think something needs to be done to curbthe birth of them by people who have no means of feeding them.

[Pithlet]

75. Your intentions may be good but you're going about it all wrong.

The baby is already born. They're going to be born. Not helping to provide the means for food and shelter seems a bit harsh, doesn't it? If you really think about it? Dealing with the problem with punitive measures certainly won't help matters at all. Viewing poor people as a "problem" to be dealt with and punished is the wrong way to go about it. Poor people aren't bad people who have done wrong. Poverty is problem that's very complex. No one's going to "fix" things that way. You're just making things worse. And your view that women are having babies for the bennies is just beyond screwed up. It's simply not reality.

[Shagbark Hickory]

80. Yes! It's Harsh! I'll grant you that.

But I view it as a very serious problem that requires a solution that is more radical.

First, let's distinguish between how I feel about poor people versus how I feel about poor people who have babies, willingly (not talking about rape victims here) that can't afford to feed their baby.

I don't fault a person for being poor. I myself cannot afford to have a child. I'm not poor, but I'm not as wealthy as one needs to be to do that if I were a single parent or if there was only one income.

On the other hand, someone who does not have the means to support a baby, whether they are poor or middle class or what have you, if they bring a baby into this world that isn't going to get fed, they are knowingly going to neglect the baby. I have a big problem with neglecting babies. A huge problem.

Now lets distinguish between a person who willingly has a baby they don't have the means to feed and a person who had the means to feed a baby when it was born but has fallen on tough times due to illness, job loss, or other circumstance.


I believe in either case, a period of welfare should be allotted but it would have to be temporary and something needs to be done to put an end to people getting the welfare that don't need it. And a plan needs to be worked out to get the parents back to supporting their baby.

In either case, even while I sympathize more with one over the other, there will come a time where the benefits will expire. That's probably where you and I part ways on this concept.

Then it boils down to who's going to feed these babies. Private charities? Family?
If the babies are homeless and not getting fed, currently they go into foster care. Not a great option if you ask me.

[Pithlet]

84. You say you don't fault a person for being poor

But you contradict yourself. Because it's a very human thing to want to have children and have a family. A civilized society does not turn away families and let them go without. It simply does not. What you're advocate is having us become one, essentially. Because you don't believe poor people should have families if they can't afford that. Well, yes. You do indeed fault poor people for being poor. Having families, having children is a very basic, human thing. You say to distinguish between those who willingly have a baby that don't have the mans and those who fall on hard times? Need is need. A child wil suffer no less because we made that distinction. You want to put an end to people getting it that don't need it? There have always been measures dealing with fraud. You sympathize more with one over another? How nice for you. I don't and think it's pretty mizerly and might unprogressive. Leaving it to private charities and family? That's what we did before the New Deal. Read your history to find out what that was like. Yeah. Foster care. Maybe that will tell you why you should change your stance on this.

[Shagbark Hickory]

86. Clearly we have different ideas of what a family is.

The religious sector preaches having kids.
We grow up thinking a family is a couple and kids. I believe one can be happy in a family without kids.

I maintain that I don't fault someone for being poor.
I fault someone for having kids without the means to feed and care for them.
There's a difference.

But yeah, the welfare shouldn't be permanent. Like I said, that's where we were going to part ways on that.

When unemployement is 0%, and there's plenty of affordable, decent housing, and food, and healthcare and education and clean water and infrastructure to go around, I'll be open to providing welfare to suit a person's religious traditions.

[Pithlet]

87. No. We have different ideas of whether it's okay to let kids go hungry.

Let's call this disagreement what it is. There are plenty of resources in this country. It's not necessary. We let Republicans (and some DINOS) get away with their crap. Your talking points are right wing ones.

[Shagbark Hickory]

91. My ideas aren't right wing ones, they're common sense ones.

The right wing believes in endless babies and no contraception.

The idea that one shouldn't have a baby they can't feed is common sense. No matter how badly a person wants to be a parent or how badly they want to comply with their religious traditions of having babies, if you can't feed them, they're going to starve.

What about countries where there aren't plenty of resources? Or any resources? Would you suggest then?

My ideas are very far left ideas. They will differ from your centrist viewpoints.

[Pithlet]

94. Yep. Right wingers love to call it common sense.

Yes, right wingers have no love for contreception. They also have no love for social safety nets. And yes, there are no social safety nets, a baby will starve. THat's why we need them, and it's also one of the main reasons why I tend not to vote Republican. Yeah, I think you're talking neoliberal. That's not progressive, or liberal my friend.

[Shagbark Hickory]

96. We can spend all day labeling my ideology.

But I have to get back to work.
Nice chattin' with ya.

Again, no hard feelings, even though you think I'm an evil librul baby hater.

[Pithlet]

97. take out the librul

DU rules prevent me from calling you conservative. But there is absolutely nothing liberal aboiut anything you've said in this thread. It's fact. Liberals do not believe in removing social safety nets. They don't. Conservatives do. It's a core part of their ideology. Fact is fact.

[Shagbark Hickory]

200. Well maybe I am...

I'm into conserving jobs, not shipping them overseas.
I'm into conserving energy and renewables. Doing away with nukes.
I'm into conserving the environment. Protecting forests and wildlife.
I'm into conserving lives and I support healthcare for all and control of health and medicine costs.
I'm into conserving money and not wasting trillions on endless wars.
I'm into conserving human rights.

Does that make me a conservative?

[Pithlet]

206. Plenty of people are conservative in some areas and not in others.

My ultra right wing dad is into conseration, too. He was also a union worker. Not eveveryone is 100% anything, true. But there are some basic ideas that often give one a picture of what's going on.

[uppityperson]

90. Many women have babies so they can get welfare? Hahahahahahahaha

Yes, I am sure there are some, but "many"? Good grief.

[Gormy Cuss]

167. Welfare is not an incentive for many to have babies. That's right up there with "welfare cadillacs."

There is no evidence in any nonpartisan research of welfare recipients that would support that assertion.

[EstimatedProphet]

208. Are you sure you want to say this?

"Welfare is an incentive for many to have babies."

Do you really think people are lining up to have babies in order to get an extra $300 a month? Because apparently you're trying to argue the old Reagan line that if we just got rid of welfare we wouldn't have all these welfare queen n****rs riding around in Cadillacs eating fried chicken and smoking menthols.

[Fumesucker]

34. We could do like the Chinese..

Shoot them and then bill the family for the bullet.

[Shagbark Hickory]

46. I propose some realistic ideas before it comes to that. And if you don't think it's going to ever

get that bad, then you're kidding yourself.

[Fumesucker]

68. If things are going to get that bad then we should jump the gun..

Nip it in the bud, so to speak.

Shoot them and bill the family for the bullet, it's where your idea has ended up before when taken to extremes.

I'm sure if we kill enough poor people the rich will be spared the suffering of paying higher taxes. :eyes:

[Shagbark Hickory]

72. You and I often have trouble discussing things.

I think it's because you get a little ridiculous after a while and it becomes increasing difficult to go on.

[Fumesucker]

28. So in your mind cousins that I have never met in my sixty plus years..

Are responsible for me and what I do?

Should the courts imprison my cousins (the ones I've never met) if they do not pay for the errors of my ways?

I wouldn't worry about people picking through the garbage dumps in the USA, in most localities that is prohibited.

What you propose sounds like a kinder, gentler version of Sippenhaft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sippenhaft

Sippenhaft or Sippenhaftung (English: "kin liability") was a form of collective punishment practiced in Nazi Germany towards the end of the Second World War. It was a legalized practice in which relatives of persons accused of crimes against the state were held to share the responsibility for those crimes and subject to arrest and sometimes execution.

[Shagbark Hickory]

36. Have you heard of...

Godwin's Law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[Pithlet]

37. Overuse of Godwin's Law

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/06/06/the-overuse-godwins-law

[Shagbark Hickory]

40. Oh you can't do that.

Claim I overused Godwins law. :D

[Pithlet]

41. I can certainly claim it's overused n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

49. Then I claim overuse of Sippenhaft nt

[Fumesucker]

53. Had you ever heard that word before I used it, Sippenhaft?

Somehow I rather doubt it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

56. Yes and it is in no way similar to holding the family of teen mother responsible for

supporting the baby.

[Fumesucker]

63. Kin liability..

The family of a teen mother is their kin, they are liable for what their kin does.

Sippenhaft as a literal translation is quite accurate.

[demigoddess]

209. one step away from what you are suggesting, is the law

that says you can kill a family member if they shame or embarrass you. you can disown a daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock, even if it is the result of rape. This is just one or two steps from barbarism!! that is why God invented welfare and social security and all those other programs to help the poor.

[Fumesucker]

But you *are* advocating a kin liability..

Cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces and so forth, they are all collectively known as "kin" and you wish to make them liable for what any kin of theirs might need.

Go back far enough in the family tree and we're all related, I'm related to at least two US Presidents and Henry David Thoreau, should anyone else also related to any one of those get a bill if I happen to need diapers for my kid?

[Shagbark Hickory]

54. Just an idea.

If you got a better one, I'm all ears.

[Fumesucker]

59. You can't be bothered to be responsible for the implications of your "idea"?

Because if kin is financially liable for kin it's only a matter of degree, not kind, to make them legally liable also.

Is the child who was raped and abused by a parent then responsible for that same parent when the parent becomes elderly and unable to cope for themselves?

[Shagbark Hickory]

64. Unfortunately covering every single extenuating circumstance that you can imagine

would take more time than I have to discuss this with you today.
If I don't get back to you in a timely manner with solutions to all these scenarios, why don't you just ask yourself what the nazis would have done.

[Fumesucker]

71. That seemed like a fairly simple scenario..

Not even all that uncommon.

And you don't have an answer.

I'm shocked..

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

110. It's not a violation of Godwin's Law if the comparison is actually apt.

[Shagbark Hickory]

207. Nobody accused anyone of violating a law, did they?

I believe they are solidly abiding by Godwin's Law.

[eilen]

212. I think you are listening to too much RW radio or something

Meeting a child's nutritional, educational and medical needs are an investment. These kids are going to grow up and work and pay for your SS and Medicare. These kids are going to decide if your nursing home needs to have enforceable regulations.

[BeFree]

11. Yeah, butt

A 50% tax rate on 250k means 125k goes to government and 1 adult job created for each baby showing that having babies is part and parcel of the 'grow or die' economic foundation of America's capitalistic/socialistic shtick.


And here I thought this was a Vitter thread.

[Shagbark Hickory]

13. If there was a job for each baby and all their babies, I'd say it's a brilliant business model.

But that's not reality.

[BeFree]

20. math

18 years into 250k = one minimum wage job for 18 years.

It is a business model. Not brilliant, but a model. And our economic reality.
So if you quit having babies, the model crashes. And this economy. Unless it changes. Bigtime.

[Shagbark Hickory]

58. * Requires a minimum wage job.

nt

[Pithlet]

16. Great! Let's get right on that. can't wait to step over the sleeping bodies of street children!

I don't get people like you.

[Shagbark Hickory]

23. I can help you try to understand if you'd like.

I'm all about fairness.

You need to teach children there are consequences, not rewards for having babies that you can't afford.

That's part of living in a civilized society in my view.

And we also have some very big challenges that we will be faced with with population growth of people that are born into poverty. Wages are not going up, job creation isn't happening, education is becoming more expensive and more exclusive than ever. Food is becoming more expensive and even scarce in some countries. The list goes on and on.

[Pithlet]

30. Well, let me help you understand something very basic.

And it's the huge flaw in your premise. Food and shelter is not a reward. It's needed for survival. And babies keep coming. The United States already have enough homeless families. Think we need to make that problem worse?

[Shagbark Hickory]

42. How do you propose those needs be met?

And what will happen later on?

[Pithlet]

44. Not cutting social safetynets

and then they don't starve and go homeless. Voila!

[Shagbark Hickory]

70. I am all for safetynets.

And I am very much against the concept of starving, homeless babies which is we we're currently seeing a lot of.

We need more education and harsher consequences for having babies that the parents can't afford so that there aren't as many starving and homeless babies. Welfare alone isn't enough to support a child. It's intended to be a temporary safety net.

[Pithlet]

76. Harsher consequences

That's the problem, right there. You're simply not seeing it. People aren't doing anything wrong when they have a baby. They simply aren't. It isn't something to be punished. My parents could no more afford me when I was born. They were pretty poor. But yet we made it as a family and then some. By the time I was a teenager we were solidly middle class in fact. I'm glad they had the chance. I'm glad I had the chance. And I'm glad they weren't "punished" as you would have had them be. Safetynets don't just prevent starvation. They provide social mobility. ETA I'm glad people like my parents have kids, and not just wealthy elite. And I"m just sorry those programs that existed when I was born have been gutted down to nothing these days. A shame. I think it's a part of why our middle class is shrinking. And you would have them cut further!

[Shagbark Hickory]

88. People that have babies they can't support or feed, ARE doing something wrong.

They are essentially conspiring to neglect their baby.

Many of the world's religions teach a family is a man and a woman and children. We have complex problems in the world today and we can't go on having children endlessly when these children are going to go hungry.

[Pithlet]

89. Why are you bringing religion into this?

And you're wrong. A society that turns their back on them is doing wrong. We do have complex problems. Letting those children starve will help? Look at the societies that do that. They have far bigger problems than we do. The countries that have the largest and largest funded safety nets have far fewer problems. Smaller unemployment. Smaller population problems. Smaller everything.

[Shagbark Hickory]

93. It didn't happen in that order. Nice try.

nt

[Pithlet]

95. ? I have no idea what you're talking about. nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

201. That's pretty evident. nt

[Pithlet]

205. What didn't happen in what order? nt

[tblue37]

22. So after our predatory capitalistic system has reduced

most American citizens to poverty, they will then face obstacles to having families, too, because only the affluent should have the right to reproduce.

Hardly anyone these days can really afford a child without some sort of help, unless they are fairly wealthy.

[Shagbark Hickory]

24. Good point! You are spot on.

You said "hardly anyone these days can really afford a child without some sort of help unless they are fairly weathy"

And thus, they should not have a baby unless they are fairly weathy!
You need to be fairly wealthy to come up with 250k per child over 18 years. (as you pointed out)

[Pithlet]

35. Only wealthy people having babies.

What sort of society would we end up with? Hmmmm.

[shimmergal]

25. How many people can prove

they can come up with $250,000 during their baby-having and -raising years?

Darn few. It's a funny thing; most of us couldn't, yet we manage to raise children who're fine, functioning members of society.

I agree that most teenagers aren't very well equipped to have babies, and it's better if they don't. But the solutions you suggest would probably backfire. Few enough Americans know their "distant relatives" now. Yhose relatives are going to be mad as hell if they're suddenly hit up for child support payments for a kid they don't even know. Cross-culturally, even paternal grandmothers seem to be a "wash" insofar as giving support to young mothers. It's the maternal grandmothers who're most reliable in proividing child care, money resources, and everything else it takes to add to a child's survival chances. See Sarah Hrdy's MOTHERS AND OTHERS for relevant research in this area.

[Dappleganger]

26. Yeah, fuck poor babies!

Punish them for their parent's mistakes, every last one of 'em!

:sarcasm:


What a bunch of right-wing GARBAGE.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

107. Uhhh... so WHO exactly SHOULD get wic, stamps, public housing, and tax breaks?

Curious here.

[dionysus]

5. how about cloth diapers like in the old days?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

105. Washed where? In a stream, like in the old days?

Most people on food stamps don't have their own washer and dryers and, according to the article:

"Even if a family in poverty wants to use cloth diapers, detergents and the few Laundromats that will allow dirty diapers in the machines are very expensive."

[dionysus]

158. good point

[shanti]

159. what??

i used cloth diapers when my sons were babies, and never had a problem washing them at laundromats. is this some kind of new restriction? :shrug: i remember having to squeeze them all out in the bathtub after soaking in the biz soak bucket, then taking them down to the laundromat. it was a nasty job, but i simply couldn't afford disposables.

[MadHound]

9. Cloth diapers are cheaper, and better for the environment n/t

[gkhouston]

12. Great if you want to use 'em at home, but if you have to leave

your child in day care, you have to take disposables.

[MadHound]

15. Actually there are several daycares that I know of where cloth is optional,

And if you want, for an extra charge, they will get them laundered by a diaper service.

You don't have to use disposables, and really, to help the environment, we shouldn't be using disposables.

[Dappleganger]

33. When you are POOR the environment has to wait in line behind necessity.

Guess you didn't think about that, huh?

[MadHound]

47. Having been POOR, and HOMELESS for a few years, I think about that a lot acutally

But apparently you are one of those who like to ass u me things that simply aren't true about people.

Now then, let's get to some economic realities. Cloth diapers are a major, up front purchase, but in the long run, they are cheaper than disposable diapers. Depending on your daycare, you can have your diapers done by a diaper service, yes, that is going to cost more.

But guess what, if you're poor, you can do the diapers yourself. A week's worth of diapers is generally an extra laundry load each week, and yes, you have to boil them. But the expense of laundry and boiling is still much cheaper than going with disposables. And hell, depending on where you live, even the diaper service will be cheaper than disposables.

Many times the most economical actions that you take are also the most environmentally friendly ones as well, you know, like refillable water bottles, or reusable diapers.

[pipi_k]

73. Along with the cloth diapers...

I realized that using cloth menstrual pads in place of disposable pads for my bladder control issues were way cheaper, even though the pads themselves are expensive up front.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

116. Daycares don't accept diapers you wash yourself. n/t

[MadHound]

119. Perhaps not in your neck of the woods,

But around here they do.

[readmoreoften]

210. So, what? Are you accusing these people of lying? Of being lazy?

Do you think they're lying when they say that cloth diapers aren't permitted? Or maybe you live in a privileged "environmentalist-y" city where "cloth diapers optional" daycare is accessible. Maybe everyone else's experience of poverty isn't identical to yours?

I'm sorry. Clearly you don't know shit about what it's ACTUALLY like to be poor in a significant way or you wouldn't go on and on about "the environment".

(Besides 97% of waste is INDUSTRIAL WASTE produced by factories and it has nothing to do with your damn pristine consumer habits.)

[Aerows]

51. And also when you are poor

you have to substitute convenience items for items you can afford. If you have running water where you live, there is no excuse for not being able to use cloth diapers, and they are cheaper. Is it less convenient? Yes. Using cloth diapers, however, is a hell of a lot better than trying to reuse disposable.

Billions of children were raised before the advent of washing machines and disposable diapers. It's not a large leap of logic to realize that it's completely possible to get by without either of those things.

[LWolf]

162. When you are POOR you don't spend

scarce dollars on disposable diapers. You use cloth.

As I did, when I was POOR and my sons were babies.

I was POOR enough to worry about having enough formula and milk on hand, and enough basic groceries to see us through each week. To this day, my 30-something sons will not eat lentils in any form. Spending the money that kept the power on and food in the cupboard on disposable diapers instead? No.

I was POOR enough not to have money for getting to and using laundromats often enough to do laundry, including diapers.

My ex's grandmother, a depression survivor, showed up with a big wash tub and a wash board, and taught me how to use it. Really.

Having gotten 2 babies through infancy to potty training on cloth diapers washed by me, on a wash board, while I was POOR, I think I can speak on this topic with some authority.

I stopped being THAT poor when I got a divorce. I finished my education, raised my kids, and never looked back. I'm not suggesting that modern parents be reduced to washing diapers on a wash board. I'm happy to support including cloth diapers and laundry vouchers as part of public assistance.

[Pithlet]

177. I didn't want to get into the cloth vs disposable but

I really don't get why people don't realize things change. 30 years ago is not today. The experiences of poor people 30 years ago wouldn't be the same. I don't think you can speak on it with the same authority. For example, the working poor today very often have to rely on daycare. And a majority of daycare centers simply do not accept cloth diapers. Therefore, many poor people today do have to buy disposables.

[gkhouston]

69. I'm glad to hear that's happening in your area. It wasn't an option

here when I had an infant, and from conversations I have with moms of young kids, things haven't changed.

[Dappleganger]

81. They don't allow that here where we are...

and if they did, who can afford to buy them in bulk upfront? There is a yearly diaper drive in our area but it's all disposable, nobody ever requests donations of cloth diapers.

[Gormy Cuss]

180. But the reality is that most of the daycares out there won't deal with cloth diapers..

I absolutely agree with you that it would be better if more people used them and for low income parents the cost of cloth diapers and modern equivalents of rubber pants would represent a much smaller investment of resources than disposables. For one thing, cloth diapers can last for use with subsequent kids.

[Dappleganger]

31. Daycare centers only do disposable.

[MadHound]

50. Perhaps where you live,

But that isn't true across the country. I know of several day care centers that went cloth optional for their environmentally, or economically conscious patrons.

[Dappleganger]

82. Well that's great for your area...

but not so great for ours. So I guess you'll have to preach your save the environment message to the wealthy.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

121. That's true in most places. There are fewer diaper services

than ever before.

[MadHound]

125. Really?

<http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=diaper+service+washington+state&aq=1&aqi=g4g-v1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4fb740208451e9b4&biw=1024&bih=582>

And that's just in the state of Washington.

[Pithlet]

191. Yep. The reality is fewer stay at home moms means

fewer people who use cloth. I know that's a hard reality for people who vigorously support their use. It's a shame because they really are so much better for the environment. But rather than shame people, it would be better to create a better environment for parents and support them more in our culture and society, so it would be easier for them to use cloth. THen maybe we would see a return to their use, in all demographics.

[laundry_queen]

62. Cloth diapers...

I'm guessing if you are poor, the initial investment in cloth diapers (sometimes up to $200 to start) is too much. You can use really cheap flat flannel diapers and plastic pants for $50 to $100 total, but those leak, which means more laundry which means more money for the laundromat (laundromats are f'n expensive!) Not to mention the rashes from plastic pants. There are nice covers now that are way better than plastic pants, but again, the initial investment is expensive. If you are only able to wash using the laundromat, drying diapers that aren't flat flannel takes forEVER (more money), and some you can't hang to dry because they get mildew-y before they dry, depending how thick they are. Then there's the expense of the added laundry detergent. Also, you need to have someone teach you how to fold and pin if you are using flats or prefolds. There are a lot of websites online that could help with that. I do know someone that used flat flannel and washed them in the bathtub everyday and hung the diapers to dry, but if you are working and/or going to school and you have a baby, chances are you don't have that kind of time. Then, as others have said, some daycares won't take cloth.

As for the poster that is whining about his tax dollars going to support these babies - maybe you should be complaining to the large companies that refuse to pay a living wage to everyone and instead pay shit wages where people can't even buy fucking diapers for their babies. Yeah, only rich people should have babies. Now THAT smacks of eugenics. Here's a news flash for you - even middle class people are having a hard time making enough money to support children. And most of those people with children RIGHT NOW actually COULD afford it when they had the kids. I'll use myself as an example. I have 4 kids. I was married. My husband made 6 figures. We were comfortable. He left me for some slut, lied about fucking up our finances and nearly bankrupted us. Now I'm a single parent barely making ends meet. I thought I was able to 'afford' it and I had planned for every contingency. Except I wasn't planning on my husband being a compulsive lying sociopath. I guess my kids don't deserve to be here because I can't afford them. Take your right wing bullshit to that other site.

[Dappleganger]

83. Well said!

I'm sorry for your circumstances, too.

:hug:

[MadHound]

99. Argue your limitations long enough, and sure enough, they're yours

Yes, a couple hundred dollars is hard to come up with when you're poor, but there are ways of raising that money.

As far as extra laundry cost, I doubt that an extra cup of detergent a week is going to make or break anybody. As far as drying goes, you can air dry cloth diapers if you follow the old wisdom of boiling your diapers after you wash them(you know, sterilizing them). This gets rid of any germs, fungus, mildew, etc.

Learning how to pin up a cloth diaper properly can be learned fairly quickly, and you can access that information either on the web, your local health department, or other such resources.

[Dappleganger]

113. You cannot air dry cloth diapers in a timely manner in hot, humid states.

How many times have people told you this? Not everyone has the benefit of being able to afford ice cold air conditioning.

I guess you don't really know poor or else you'd know this already.

[MadHound]

117. Let's see, I live in Missouri

Where it is regularly in the upper ninties and the humidity is about the same. And yes, you can safely air dry cloth diapers, both outside and in, without AC, if you boil them, sterilize them first.

Gee, whatever did our parents do fifty years ago before the advent of disposable diapers?:eyes: Oh, yeah, used cloth ones. Everybody did, all over the country. And there was absolutely no problem.

[pnwmom]

123. The childhood mortality rate was much higher in earlier eras.

I'd rather not do all the things our parents did 50 years ago.

Do you think we should also limit our kids to the kinds of medicines that were available then, too?

Was your mother going to work every day AND washing and drying diapers? If not, then there's no comparison.

[MadHound]

129. And was that child motality rate due to cloth diapers?

I think not.

Actually yes, my mom was a teacher, and she not only taught school and used cloth diapers, but raised a garden and many other things as well.

But hey, keep on throwing those disposable diapers into the landfill, who gives a damn about the environment, or saving money. The world is going to hell anyway and I'll be damned if I'm going to be inconvenienced, right:eyes:

[pnwmom]

134. Yes, some of it no doubt was.

Germs from diseases were more likely to be spread.

Was your mother a teacher WHILE she had a newborn in diapers? Who was taking care of her baby then?

[MadHound]

135. Oh geez, I give up

You are arguing this to the point of absurdity, and it obviously pointless to continue this conversation. Get back to me when you have actual, true statistics that show that kids died from the use of cloth diapers. Until then, you have gone beyond the point of reason.

[pnwmom]

138. I see. So your mother wasn't teaching while she had a baby in diapers.

Figures.

[hedgehog]

155. Fifty years ago, there was an adult in the home full time who did

nothing but care for the home and children. This adult was called a "wife". Today, the "wife" is required to work in the public sphere in order to bring sufficient cash into the household.

[pnwmom]

131. Mildew is in the AIR! It can land on the diapers AFTER they've been "sterilized"

and then grow while they're slowly drying.

[MadHound]

136. Oh, heaven forbid, all us kids grew up with mildewy bottoms

You are sounding more ridiculous by the post. Bye:hi:

[pnwmom]

139. Many people have mold allergies and asthma, particularly poor children.

You're not sounding ridiculous, you're sounding incredibly callous.

[Dappleganger]

140. Exactly.

Looks as if I'm not the only one who sees how ridiculous those replies were.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how this will apply to keeping granny in cloth diapers.

[pipi_k]

154. There's a fungus on my bungus!!!!

hahahahaha!!!



Anyway, yeah...I'm a child of the 50s. I wore cloth diapers, as did my two younger sisters.

We all managed to survive the trauma...

:7

[pnwmom]

160. My mother dried our diapers in a dryer. Did yours?

Even so, I am allergic to mold and have mild asthma. It would have been worse if I'd been exposed to even more mold than what's in the air already.

Many poor mothers don't have washers or dryers, or access to laundromats.

"Even if a family in poverty wants to use cloth diapers, detergents and the few Laundromats that will allow dirty diapers in the machines are very expensive."

[pipi_k]

165. No...we didn't have a dryer back then

I'm pretty sure she either washed them in my grandmother's wringer washer, or in her own. I do remember we had one.

Drying was done on the clothesline...or if it rained, she would hang laundry on lines up in the attic. I remember going up there with her sometimes when my sisters were just babies.

[pnwmom]

169. You weren't in an apartment then -- not with an attic.

When I was a new mother, high on pro-lactin (or whatever), I remember changing my baby in the middle of the night with a sweet-smelling, very soft diaper service diaper, and suddenly being EXTREMELY grateful that I had them, and that I didn't have to wash them, or dry them, like my mother had. (I remember hating that smell.) And I didn't have to hang them by the fire to dry, like women in even earlier times. (Where they ended up anything but soft.)

So I wouldn't wish that chore on anyone else, even if she happened to be poor. It's hard enough taking care of a new baby. Diaper services aren't available for poor families, as far as I know, but donated paper diapers are. Now that I know about the need, I'm going to contribute.

[pipi_k]

193. You're right... we were in a house by then...

Before that, though, we lived in an apartment. I mean, when I was a small baby.

I'll have to ask my mom how she handled the diaper situation there...

[laundry_queen]

198. Not saying it can't be done.

Just for some who are desperately poor, and uneducated, with no extended family support it must be just far too overwhelming. And 'there are ways of raising that money'. For some, sure! There are others who are simply unable, however.

[pnwmom]

130. Thanks for the reality check, laundry_queen.

The only thing I would add is that you need a car to get to the laundromat -- a load of used diapers is bulky and heavy.

[Obamanaut]

195. There is a great difference in the scenario of your second paragraph, where

the family is established and then becomes disestablished and that of a young two person family on limited incomes barely making it and then starting a family they can ill afford.

In your case the situation was thrust upon you, whereas in others (in my example) they jump into it via poor planning.

It is imprudent for a couple of limited means to START a family that their income will not support.

[laundry_queen]

199. Something like 50% of pregnancies are unplanned.

Chances are, lots of those people will be poor. Even more likely because birth control isn't cheap anymore, and with the repugs shutting down places like planned parenthood, this scenario is going to just keep happening. I'm guessing that the number of couples who are very poor, and plan a baby is pretty small. Probably most people who really need the diaper assistance are more like me than your example.

[pnwmom]

103. The article says that most laundromats don't allow them.

And that the ones that do are very expensive. So that's a nice idea in theory.

"Even if a family in poverty wants to use cloth diapers, detergents and the few Laundromats that will allow dirty diapers in the machines are very expensive."

[MadHound]

104. Really?

That must be a new development, or a regional thing, because around here there is no limits on cloth diapers in the laundromats:shrug:

And even in cities and regions that have laundromats that don't allow cloth diapers, surely you could find one. Or wash them by hand:shrug:

[pnwmom]

106. Think about it. Poor people also often don't have cars

and have limited transportation methods. Getting their laundry done is already difficult enough without adding a load of diapers.

They're lucky if they live near one laundromat, much less have their pick of them.

WASH DIAPERS BY HAND? Are you kidding? I guess they should dry them over the fire, too. It's the babies that would suffer here, from diapers left on too long and diapers that were never properly washed.

[MadHound]

111. Yeah, having ridden to the laundromat with a backpack full of clothes,

I know exactly what a pain in the butt it can be to find a decent laundromat.

And yes, I have washed diapers by hand, and boiled them, and hung them out to dry, both inside and out. And guess what, they worked just fine, and no babies were harmed in the process. You know why? Because you BOIL the diapers, effectively sterilizing them, thus they don't mildew or other such things while they're drying, especially when they dry in the sun.

Geez, it isn't like this is brand new process. Up until about fifty years ago, cloth diapers were the norm, and none of us suffered from it. Is it ideal for all people, no. But it is certainly an alternative, a cheap and environmentally conscious alternative, for many, many people.

[pnwmom]

118. How do you dry diapers in the sun if you don't have a yard?

And in the middle of a rainy winter?

Up till 50 years ago, most women stayed at home, working on things like diapers. But now we require even welfare recipients with children to work outside the home. So where are they going to find all this extra time to do diapers by hand?

[MadHound]

122. Much like you do sweaters and other such stuff,

You hand a line or set up a rack in your home, and dry them on that. Much like our parents did fifty years ago. Boil them, sterilize them, and you don't have to worry about germs.

And as far as time goes, it takes approximately an extra hour every week to use cloth diapers. And that is mainly in boiling and folding time.

[pnwmom]

126. Oh, please. Even if you sterilize them, mold is still a problem

if you're trying to dry things indoors.

I used diaper service diapers, but I would never have tried to wash them myself. It would take a lot more than an hour to thoroughly wash and dry 90 diapers.

[MadHound]

132. Well then, I guess I must have had a moldy bottom when I was a kid,

Oh, wait, I didn't.

Boiling them is the key, even though you refuse to see it. What do you think they do at diaper services? Either boil or steam them, thus sterilizing them.

[pnwmom]

142. If you don't have a mold allergy or asthma, lucky for you.

But many people do, especially poor children.

I know exactly what diaper services do, because I used one. They washed the diapers far better than I could have, and they dried them in actual dryers. Not on a line.

You don't seem to understand that when wet cloth is sterilized, it won't stay sterile in an apartment filled with dust and mold. In a humid climate, it will get moldy before it dries. Boiling the diaper doesn't remove mold from the air, which can then settle and grow in the previously sterile diaper. And exposure to mold, in susceptible people, results in mold allergies and asthma.

Children can die from asthma, and from infections secondary to their asthma. This isn't a trivial matter.

[hedgehog]

156. What do you boil the diapers in?

[pipi_k]

168. I used to have a HUGE speckleware pot

I could have cooked spaghetti for 50 people with that pot.

anyway, I would imagine someone could find a bigass pot like that at a yard sale or something

:)

[Obamanaut]

203. I have read nearly every response in this thread, mostly because we

never used disposable diapers.

You can give anecdotes of things that worked for you and countless others, you can give examples of how an alternative 'might' work (use cloth at home, disposable for daycare etc), give environmental reasons and for EVERY SINGLE ONE there will be naysayers with a string of 'what ifs' - what if there is no transportation, what if there is no washer/dryer, what if the daycare doesn't, what if you're allergic to mold - and on, and on.

Sheesh, one might think no one ever in the history of mankind ever used a diaper that could be washed.

[shanti]

166. exactly

although washing by hand would have been out of the question for me, it's done by millions of people in the world (boiling).

when my kids were in cloth diapers, i never boiled them, just used the hottest water possible in the washer, it was all good. never had a problem finding laundromats to wash them either...

you do what you gotta do.

[laundry_queen]

202. Lots of laundromats around here won't take cloth

or work clothes or hockey equipment (don't ask). It's because of bacterial or chemical contamination (or in the case of hockey equipment, the plastic banging on the drum wrecks the machine).

I get that you can wash them by hand, then boil them and then hang them to dry. It does take a lot of time, however and is very difficult if you are working full time - complete with a long commute. I think diapers should at least be allowed to be part of public assistance.

[demodonkey]

14. You probably can't this this, but...

I'm low income and haven't been able to renew my DU donation this year, so I get ads on every page. You probably can't this this, but here is the advertisement that showed up with your post.

http://www.gdiapers.com

Looks like a nice product, but the people you are talking about most assuredly can't afford them. However this company looks like they are trying to be socially responsible, so perhaps they would help?

http://www.gdiapers.com/fair-dinkum/gdiapers-community/non-profits

[aikoaiko]

27. Diapers seem like a worthy charity item.

I'll look locally for a donation center. Usually we just give to the women's shelter.

[pnwmom]

127. Finally! Someone who isn't trying to punish poor women

for daring to have children they can't afford.

:hug:

[aikoaiko]

141. I don't know why people are gettng bent out of shape.

The OP merely contained a request for a donated item that would be put to good use. It doesn't seem any different from a canned food drive or items to be shipped overseas for our service men and women.

Seems simple to me.

[pnwmom]

144. I thought so, too. This has been eye-opening. n/t

[Aerows]

43. Many, of the people in this thread

were a baby when disposable diapers were uncommon. What did your parents do?

Food is a necessity to survive. Disposable diapers are not a necessity to survive, and are hurting the environment. It does not take a genius to figure out that you can use cloth diapers. Generations of babies have been born before washing machines and disposable diapers, and their parents figured it out.

Do you have running water and a toilet? It doesn't take much of a leap of logic to figure out exactly what you need to do to get a diaper cleaned and hang it up to dry!

It is neither a tremendous hardship nor "degrading" to do what generations of mothers and fathers have done. Is it less convenient? Sure, but it's also better for the environment and far far cheaper.

[Pithlet]

55. Back then more mothers stayed home.

Working parents who need to put their children in daycare will have a harder time with it. I'm pretty sure many daycares use disposables so at least part of the day they will have to use them.

[pnwmom]

109. My mother had a washer and dryer in our house.

Most poor people today don't have washers and dryers in their apartments. And where are they supposed to dry their diapers? Outside, where they don't have a yard? Or inside, by the fire perhaps?

Running water and a toilet isn't enough to get a diaper properly cleaned. Earlier generations also had a high childhood mortality rate. We don't need to go back to the olden days, thanks.

[Tennessee Gal]

66. Diapers for Disabled Children.

There is a program for children with Down Syndrome that provides diapers or pull ups for them after age three. Somehow they are acquired by having a doctor write a prescription.

[laundry_queen]

67. I'd love to start a charity

that handed out those hand powered washing machines complete with cloth diapers and covers (in all sizes because those babies grow FAST) and a big box of laundry detergent for new moms who are poor. The machines are like a big bucket with a hand crank that agitates the load inside. This could alleviate the added laundromat cost. The diapers would be prefolds so you could hang them to dry. It would be added time and effort, but I'm guessing many poor moms would be very grateful. They could use the bucket 'machine' for their other laundry as well, saving them more laundromat costs. And it would be SO much better for the environment. It would be win-win.

[Obamanaut]

74. There are several posts saying the cloth diapers are a major up-front

expense, and that seems to be one of the reasons folks are against them.

Before a person needs the very first one, there are several (nearly nine) months notice of that need. Buy a few at a time over that long period of waiting for the actual need.

Use the cloth diapers at home, and only use disposable ones if the baby's day care will not accept those cloth ones. Even that will help some on the expense.

[mrs_p]

77. we tried disposables

for one week. the up-front cost was over $200.00 so we really wanted to make it work. but, after a few major poo explosions by our newborn, we gave up. we had to wash more than the diapers! and that was when we were severely sleep deprived and exhausted. we may try again when she is bigger and the cloth diapers fit better.

[Obamanaut]

79. I became quite skilled at fitting diapers to the babies. Some of Miz O's

friends were amazed, saying their husbands couldn't do that. Miz O told them it wasn't "couldn't" but rather "wouldn't" or "didn't want to."

Our two daughters never had disposables, and our grandchildren and great grand have had nothing but.

[pnwmom]

112. That only works if you have a washer and dryer,

or access to a laundromat that accepts a diapers -- along with a car or other reasonable transportation to get there. While you're carrying your load of diapers and your other laundry.

According to the article:

"Even if a family in poverty wants to use cloth diapers, detergents and the few Laundromats that will allow dirty diapers in the machines are very expensive."

[Obamanaut]

190. I truly believe that, working hard enough, one could find reasons why

not a single suggestion would be workable. For anyone.

There is this "...That only works if you have a washer and dryer..." Some people DO have them. For them it would work. For others, they must find a solution that works for them.

Or, there is the old standby of thowing one's hand into the air and moaning "Life is just too hard."

[Obamanaut]

192. I truly believe that, working hard enough, one could find reasons why

not a single suggestion would be workable. For anyone.

There is this "...That only works if you have a washer and dryer..." Some people DO have them. For them it would work. For others, they must find a solution that works for them.

Or, there is the old standby of thowing one's hand into the air and moaning "Life is just too hard."

[Pisces]

85. Don't have a baby if you can't provide basic necessities like diapers. This is not a 3rd world

country. People have choices and options about pregnancy. I don't understand wanting to bring a child into this world that will be such a burden to you that you would let the child suffer with diaper
rash.

[Cairycat]

92. Because parents' circumstances never change

between conception and the time the child arrives, or is here awhile. No mother is ever dumped by the father, or is beaten by him, etc. etc.

How is punishing the child for the parents' circumstances a good thing?

[Pithlet]

102. Well, that's the thing. We aren't a 3rd world country. We have resources.

So, there are some of us who say "People who can't afford babies shouldn't have them! *stomp* I won't help them! *pout* *sniff* And then there are those who realize that those babies are going to be around anyway, and no use in letting them suffer because, well they can't help it can they? and we do have resources, so might as well use them! Good thing, huh?

[Pisces]

124. I think we have a society that raises kids to assume they should have children, when in fact many

people should not have them. They are mentally incapable, they are financially incapable or emotionally unable to care for a child. We have so much child abuse because so many are unfit to be parents in the first place but there is a social stigma to stating you never want children.

Too much pressure to procreate and not enough reality taught that children are difficult. Stupid shows like 16 and pregnant that glorify child rearing and make it seem like everyone is having a baby are giving rise to more teen pregnancy. We are not suffering from a population problem, we need to
teach kids that it's ok to never have children.

[Pithlet]

128. So, do you think your opinion on whether or not the baby should have been born

matters to that baby while it's crying its little eyes out in its soiled diaper because its mother couldn't afford to buy new ones? I don't. So I won't turn up my nose at diaper drives.

[Pisces]

149. Where is discussion on this board. Who is turning their nose up at diaper drives. I will donate

to this cause, have donated to many causes because of the humanity of the situation even if I don't agree. I am stating that to get to the root cause which is having babies people are unequipped to take care of should be the first thing we tackle. Teen pregnancy leads to poverty. It is a vicious cycle.

I think we should be attacking the problem of the societal pressure to procreate. We are not in danger of going extinct. Too many abused kids in this country belonging to parents who should never
have had kids in the first place. A diaper program is not going to help them. Many of these kids are destined to be neglected their whole lives. I know that poor parents find a way to diaper their
children, not all poor people abide severe diaper rash on their children. I am concerned that those that do are the same ones that would later neglect or abuse their kids.

[Pithlet]

174. Who is? Just read the thread.

There is actual objection on principle to diaper drives. it's one thing to say "I don't want to donate, thanks" That's fine. But I can't think of a more useless rant than People shouldn't have babies they can't afford! Really. People from all walks of life are going to have babies. Always have. Always will. Time to get used to it if you don't like it.

[pnwmom]

114. The same argument applies to CHIP and all our child services.

I can't believe I'm hearing so much of this on a Democratic site.

[TwilightGardener]

101. At some point, a parent is responsible for providing SOMETHING in raising a baby.

Babies are expensive. That's why you shouldn't have them unless you can afford them. The rest of the world does not owe your baby a supply of diapers for two or three years. I know this sounds hard-hearted, but I draw the line at worrying about someone's baby's diapers.

[pnwmom]

120. It's the children who suffer from your attitude.

The parents will just make do in the ways described in the article -- leaving diapers on too long, rinsing out and reusing dirty ones, etc.

[TwilightGardener]

133. There is no practical way to make parenthood cost-free. Nor is it a desirable goal.

Being on public assistance in terms of food, shelter, medical care, etc. should free up enough funds for diapers--disposable, cloth, whatever. Assuming a parent receives all other available forms of public assistance and still can't/won't provide clean diapers to the point where the baby has terminal diaper rash, then it's not a matter of money, it's a matter of parenting and priorities.

[Pithlet]

137. That is some twisted logic, there.

Being on public assistance doesn't make them not poor. It's not like they're suddenly going to have all this excess money. They'll still be struggling. They'll still be much more likely to be broke, especially when unexpected expenses come up, like a car breaking down.

[TwilightGardener]

146. Struggling financially happens to many, many people at various points in life.

There's no way to ensure that everyone's journey through life is smooth, comfortable, convenient, and affordable in every aspect, especially in choosing to become a parent. At some point, you must bear some of the expenses and burdens of your choices in life. Choose to have a child, bear at least SOME of the cost--no one can completely take the burden off your shoulders, nor should they. This is, by the way, why I believe in legal and available abortion, adoption, and birth control services.

[Pithlet]

152. I believe in reproductive choice, too.

But I'm sorry. I don't buy the talking point that people who support safety nets and who aren't totally opposed to helping poor people in general just want to make them cushy and lazy and take the burden off their shoulders. That's preposterous.

[TwilightGardener]

176. Not opposed to anybody helping anybody. Spend your charity dollars as you see fit.

What I am opposed to is the idea that society must provide EVERYTHING one needs to raise a child. I don't think that leads to healthy expectations and responsible parenting. Parenting is not babysitting--it really does involve sacrifice and trade-offs, especially when one chooses keep and raise a baby without the means to do so in a convenient and comfortable manner. Spending $100 a month on diapers, laundering cloth diapers--there's no escaping certain realities.

[Pithlet]

179. Well, who said that? This was a thread about diaper drives.

Not providing everyone with everything.

[TwilightGardener]

182. The thread is posing this as a major societal problem that must be addressed--

by government, industry and charity. Because we must all pitch in to save babies from diaper rash, now--if they have it, it's society's fault. We're letting those babies down.

[Pithlet]

183. No, it wasn't.

It was just a post about diaper drives. Merely a charity. Nowhere dit it say that people had to contribute to them. No one told you you had to contribute. That just must have been your own guilt that compelled you to chime in, maybe?

[TwilightGardener]

185. Diaper deprivation?

"We are looking at national efforts, considering legislative advocacy, exploring purchasing options to keep our costs as low as possible and working closing with Kimberly Clark, Huggies as they prioritize the issue of diaper deprivation. I don’t believe that any one entity can solve this problem alone. It’s not up to government, corporations, foundations or individuals to tackle this in isolation. It must be a group effort." What guilt would I have, by the way? The guilt of allowing even ONE baby to suffer from diaper rash??? Actually, both my kids had occasional diaper rash--I guess for that I should feel guilty, LOL.

[Pithlet]

187. Oh no! How dare they!

How dare they spread the message that there is a need! You know, I do believe that from now on I'm not just going to ignore the charities I choose not to donate to. I'll rail against them. That makes sense! Shame on you for trying to get my attention! :sarcasm:And yes, a group effort. I do believe that most charities are.

I don't know. I was only speculating about what would compel one to jump into a thread about a charity in the manner you did. I'm at a loss, actually.

[TwilightGardener]

188. Again, it's not a thread about charity. It's a societal issue that must be addressed

BECAUSE public assistance and food banks are supposedly failing to cover disposable diaper expense, and cloth diapers create inconvenience and hardship. The frame the article takes is that I should be SURPRISED that parents aren't getting diapers for free. And dammit, they SHOULD be.

[Pithlet]

189. Oh, well, that's better?

So, you're opposed to poor parents receiving a basic need? Oh. Okay then.

And who cares that they mention there's a need because it's a basic need that happens to not be covered by any of our social safety nets. Why that twists your undies I have no idea. it's still an article about charity. They're telling people that htere's a need. They don't want people to assume that need is already covered in another way.

[TwilightGardener]

194. I am opposed to the expectation that society and government can

and should provide EVERYTHING deemed essential when one chooses to have a child--for a host of reasons. Yet that is what I gleaned from the article, and it doesn't sit well with me.

[Pithlet]

196. I don't know how on earth you gleaned that

I would be curious how you justify putting children through going without. But I'm willing to bet you either don't think of it or you have some twisted way of rationalizing that. Either way, I'm not sure I want to go there at any rate. And the fact that you say there isn't just one but a host? Ugh. Really probably don't want to know.

[pnwmom]

145. The fact of the matter is that it does NOT free up enough funds for diapers

because the amount provided on public assistance is INSUFFICIENT.

You try living on those amounts with children. See how you like it when you're trying to decide whether you should feed them corn flakes for dinner or buy diapers.

[TwilightGardener]

153. Then one must earn some money, or get some money from someone who does.

What next, is there going to be concern over the lack of affordable brain-stimulating infant toys and mobiles? Do we owe all poor parents NEW cribs, because the old drop-sides are now deemed unsafe? Where does it end? For me, it ends with diapers. Some things, you simply must manage on your own.

[pnwmom]

170. Clean diapers are a health issue, which is why daycare centers only accept

paper diapers or diapers from services. If you're going to draw the line somewhere, I think you should include anything that's a health issue inside the line.

[TwilightGardener]

181. Again, if you are not providing regular clean diapers for your baby, then there is

a problem that is going beyond a package of Pampers. And how about wipes? They're about as essential as diapers. What if a parent can't afford wipes, and doesn't have a washing machine, and the laundromat won't allow poopy cloths of any kind? Now someone's handing you diapers, but how do you clean the baby? Paper towels? Now someone has to buy those, and what if you can't get to the store because you have no car or bus fare!

[pnwmom]

184. Read the article again.

Lots of these families DO have problems. The mothers might not be as smart or as capable as you, and they might have burdens you've never had. But should the babies suffer? Are we, as a society, better off if they do?

[Dappleganger]

186. Actually, I did make my own wipes.

We used a square-shaped plastic container with a very tight fitting lid (like rubbermaid, you can get it at Walmart or most grocery stores). Then I used a bread knife and cut a roll of paper towels in half (you have to saw it, but it's worth the effort). Then put the half in the plastic container. Fill up one cup of water (or more, depending on what you like) with Babyfresh or any other kind of liquid baby soap, then pour it completely over the paper towel roll in the container. The paper towels soak up the liquid and become very mild baby wipes. If you need to take some with you, just unroll a bunch and put them into a ziplok bag and put them with your diapers.

My sister got me started on that and I loved how fresh it smelled, plus it was actually easier to make that than to always go out and buy wipes (we always had a roll of paper towels on hand). HTH

[Dappleganger]

108. Diapers are a basic necessity for babies and should be covered under WIC, SNAP

or TANF. The judgmental posts in this thread are hardly befitting of a democratic forum. Part of the problem is that disposables' prices have been so jacked up by big corporations instead of keeping them affordable (the same can be said for adult diapers, too--are those of you insisting that the poor use cloth diapers as adamant about those being used with our elderly and infirmed?).

Babies are here--if we don't help take care of them they will never have a chance to become great human beings. If you don't like the fact that they are here, then why don't you go from house to house passing out free birth control since Planned Parenthood is being shut down from doing so in many areas.

We have a huge failure to connect, here.

[Pithlet]

115. I agree.

This thread is a perfect example of why we cannot rely on charities alone. A thread about diaper drives! Were people confused and thought it was about government spending? I don't know. Ugh.

[pnwmom]

150. I really, really did not expect this. I thought hardly anyone would reply,

and I never thought this would be controversial. I just thought some people might appreciate knowing that places like this are asking for diaper donations.

[FSogol]

175. It shouldn't be controversial. Food banks can really use diapers. Seems like some people are on the

wrong website.

[demodonkey]

213. +100000

There should be NO CONTROVERSY about this at all.

[Pithlet]

197. I'm not surprised.

There's the don't help them and they won't breed malarkey you occasionally get here. Then there's that general misanthropy, you know that kind you see on DU, and I just sense it here. I think that's at play, too.

[pnwmom]

151. It's like we've fallen into libertarian hell. When did that happen? n/t

[southernyankeebelle]

143. Well I don't know but does anyone know if they still make cloth diapers? If

they do here is what I use to do to save money. When I was home I used cloth diapers and rubber pants to protect from wet diapers. Then I would use disposal diapers when I went out.

[pnwmom]

147. When you were home, did you have a washer and dryer?

Many poor people don't. They also often don't have access to laundromats that take diapers, or cars to drive themselves there even if they found one.

"Even if a family in poverty wants to use cloth diapers, detergents and the few Laundromats that will allow dirty diapers in the machines are very expensive."

[LWolf]

157. Cloth diapers.

You can get a dozen cloth diapers at Target for $12.09. That's 4 times the cost of a disposable, but you only have to buy it once. Get 5 dozen, and for less than one month's cost for disposable diapers, you've got plenty.

[pnwmom]

163. Few daycares will let you send cloth diapers in with your child.

The ones that accept cloth diapers have contracts with diaper services -- which are expensive.

Poor mothers often don't have washers and dryers in their apartments; and they often don't have cars to drive to the laundromats which are unlikely to take diapers anyway.

From the article, "Even if a family in poverty wants to use cloth diapers, detergents and the few Laundromats that will allow dirty diapers in the machines are very expensive."

[Liberal_in_LA]

171. I saw recent documentary on poverty - young mom had resorted to dish towels as diapers

[madmom]

204. This is what my volunteer org. did. The women all got together and had a

"baby shower" We all brought "gifts" lots of diapers, had a luncheon, played games, had a great time. ALL the baby gifts were donated to the local pregnancy center. They are still sending us thanks.

[surrealAmerican]

211. Subsidized day care programs ought ...

... to be provided with diapers and should not be allowed to turn babies away if the parents are unable to supply them. That is a horrible position to put a parent in.